' Lal Khan, Mian Khan, Nadir Khan, Mehdi Khan, Muhammad Anwar, Muhammad Shari!, Muhammad Malik, Bahawal Bakhsh, Mushtaq Ahmad and Muhammad Zaman were tried by an Additional Sessions Judge of Gujrat under sections 302, 307, 148 and 149, P.P.C. For the double murder of Bahadur and Mst. Manzoor Begum, deceased, for attempt on the lives of Ghulam Haider P.W. 12, Lal Khan P.W.13, Muhammad Aslam P.W.14, Ghulam Haider P.W.15 and Mehdi Khan P.W.16 and for rioting.
The learned trial Judge, by his judgment dated 11-4-1984, convicted Lal Khan, Mian Khan, Nadir Khan, Muhammad Anwar, Muhammad Sharif and Muhammad Malik, accused, under sections 302 and 149, P.P.C., and sentenced them to life imprisonment each and to pay a fine of Rupees Five Thousand (Rs,5,000) each or in default thereof to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for two years each and under section 148, P.P.C. To two years' rigorous imprisonment each. He also convicted Muhammad Malik under section 307, P.P.C. For making an attempt on the life of Lal Khan P.W. And sentenced him to seven years' rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rupees Two Thousand (Rs,2,000) or in default thereof to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for six months and convicted Muhammad Sharif, Lal Khan, Mian Khan, Nadir Khan, Mehdi Khan and Muhammad Anwar under section 323, P.P.C. For causing simple injuries to the remaining witnesses and sentenced them to one year's rigorous imprisonment each and to pay a fine of Rupees Five Hundred (Rs,500) each or in default thereof to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for three months each. Bahawal Bakhsh, Mushtaq Ahmad and Muhammad Zaman were acquitted of all the charges. All the sentences imposed on the seven convicts were ordered to run concurrently. Out of the fine imposed under sections 302 and 149, P.P.C. On each of the accused, if realized, half thereof was ordered to be paid to the legal heirs of the two deceased. The appeal (Criminal Appeal 186 of 1984) preferred by the seven convicts against their conviction and sentences and the private revision (Criminal Revision 339 of 1984) filed by Ghulam Haider, complainant, against the convicts for the enhancement of their sentences, are both now before me for disposal.
2. The prosecution case in brief is that one Jewan son of Noor Ahmad, who is from the brotherhood of Ghulam Haider complainant P.W.12 and also from his party, and his house on the eastern side of the village. A large tract of rain water was standing on the northern and eastern side of his house, which posed a danger to his house. On the day of occurrence i.e,, 18-7-1981, the said Jewan came to Ghulam Haider complainant P.W.12, who alongwith Bahadur deceased, Lal Khan P.W.13, Muhammad Aslam P.W.14, Ghulam Haider P.W.15 and Mehdi Khan P.W.16, accompanied Jewan to his house. They inspected the spot and decided to demolish the northern wall of Jewan's house, so that the water may pass through it. After demolishing the wall, they were preparing a channel to guide the water into Saim Nala. Initially the water had to pass into another channel which was already existing there and then flow into the Saim Nala. The water of the whole village flowed from this channel into the main Saim Nala since long before the present occurrence. The houses of the accused were situated to the western side of this channel. When the prosecution witnesses were opening the channel for the flow of water, they heard a Lalkara raised by the eleven accused, who were coming out of the house of Bahawal, accused. They were shouting that they would not allow them to divert the water in the channel they had prepared. Muhammad Sharif, Muhammad Malik and Farman All (proclaimed offender), accused, were armed with .12 bore guns, Muhammad Anwar, accused, was armed with a pistol, and Lal Khan, Mian Khan, Nadir Khan, Bahawal Bakhsh, Mushtaq Ahmad and Muhammad Zaman, accused, were armed with Sotas. Muhammad Malik, accused, fired, which shot hit Lal Khan P.W.13 on his left upper arm and upper lip. Mehdi, accused, fired at Ghulam Haider P.W.15, hitting him in his chest, right upper arm and neck as well as on his right hand. In order to save their lives, Ghulam Haider complainant P.W.12 and his companions rushed towards the house of Hayat son of Janoo. They were followed by the accused, who threw brickbats at them whilst they attempted to scale over the wall of Hayat's house. Lal Khan, accused, inflicted a Sota blow on the head of Aslam P.W.14, Mian Khan, accused threw a brickbat which hit Ghulam Haider complainant P.W.12 on his left hand. Muhammad Anwar, accused, threw a brickbat which hit Mehdi P.W.16 on his head. Meanwhile, Bahadur, deceased, Ghulam Haider complainant P.W.12 and Jewan P.W.17, out of fear, had climbed up on the roof of Hayat's house. Farman Ali, accused, fired at Bahadur, deceased, hitting him on his chest and right eye, as a result of which he fell down and died there arA then. Mst. Manzoor Begum, deceased, the sister of Bahadur, deceased, who was present in the street, tried to cross the wall in order to enter into the courtyard of Hayat's house, when she was hit by brickbat thrown by Nadir Khan, accused, which hit her belly. Thereafter, Muhammad Sharif, accused, fired at Mst. Manzoor Begum, deceased, hitting her in the abdomen, on which she fell down in an injured condition. Lal son of Muhammad and Sardar son of Akbar (given up P.Ws.) also witnessed the occurrence. All the accused then left for Bahawal Bakhsh accused's house, after firing in the air and jumping in jubilation and joy. During the incident, some members of the complainant party also threw some brickbats at the accused in order to save their lives. The motive for the occurrence was that the accused did not like the rain water passing in front of their houses, which was what the complainant party were attempting to do.
3. Leaving Jalal Lambardar and Lal Khan P.W.13 at the spot, Ghulam Haider complainant P.W.12 proceeded to the Police Station Dinga, where he lodged F.I.R. Exh.P.M. At 4-15 p.m., which was recorded by Mamrais Khan S.I. P.W.25. He also recorded his supplementary statement regarding the injuries caused by Muhammad Sherif, accused, to Mst. Manzoor Begum, deceased. As Ghulam Haider, complainant P.W.12 was injured, then police officer sent him to the hospital for medical examination. The police officer then proceeded to the spot. On the way near Adda Channan, he met Lal Khan P.W.13, Muhammad Aslam P.W.14, Ghulam Haider P.W.15, Mehdi Khan P.W.16 and Mst.
Manzoor Begum, deceased. He prepared their injury statements and recorded their statements under section 161, Cr.P.C. He sent Mst. Manzoor Begum, deceased, to the Civil Hospital, Kharian and the remaining injured witnesses to the Civil Hospital, Dings for their medical examination. On reaching the spot, the said police officer, after preparing the necessary papers, sent the dead body of Bahadur, deceased, for the post-mortem examination. He also took into possession blood- stained earth from the place where the dead body of Bahadur Khan, deceased, was found lying and from where Mst. Manzoor Begum was reported to be injured, vide memos. Exhs.P.J. And P.C.
Respectively.
4. On 18-7-1981 at 5-45 p.m. Dr. Ghazanfar Ahmad Salim P.W.19 medically examined Ghulam Haider P.W.12 and found two lacerated wounds x 1/8" x skin deep on the back of the left ring and little fingers, which simple blunt weapon injuries were found to have been inflicted with five to six hours.
5. On the same day at 10-30 p.m. Dr. Ghazanfar Ahmad Salim P.W.19 medically examined Lal Khan P.W.13 and found one fire-arm entrance wound on his left upper lip, one fire-arm_ exit wound on the inner side of the same lip, one fire-arm entrance wound on the left upper arm and three fire- arm entrance wounds on the inner aspect of his upper arm. All the injuries were found to be simple and inflicted within ten hours, lead pieces of bullets were also extracted from the left upper arm.
6. On the same day at 10-30 p.m. Dr. Ghazanfar Ahmad Salim P.W.19 also examined Muhammad Aslam P.W.14 and found a lacerated wound 1 1/2" x 1/2" on the top of his head, which simple blunt weapon injury was found to have been inflicted within two hours.
7. The same doctor also examined Ghulam Haider P.W.15 at the same time and found a fire-arm wound on his right index finger, a fire-arm wound near his right armpit, fifteen fire-arm wounds on his right upper arm, twelve fire-arm wounds on the right side of his chest and nine fire-arm wounds on the right side of his neck. All the injuries were found to be simple and inflicted within ten hours.
8. The same doctor also examined Mehdi Khan P.W.16 at the same time and found a lacerated wound 11" x 1" on his head, which simple blunt weapon injury was found to have been inflicted within ten hours.
9. On, 18-7-1981 at 10-30 p.m. Lady Doctor Mrs. Fayyaz Pervaiz P.W.18 medically examined Mst.
Manzoor Begum, deceased, and found a swelling 3" x 3" round her public region, with a small hole 1/6" size present in the said area, which was bleeding. The injured also complained of severe pain in the lower abdomen. The probable duration of the fire-arm injury was opined to be within eight hours.
10. On 19-7-1981, the Investigating Officer visited the spot and recovered pieces of brickbats P.25 to P.28 and crime empties P.29 to P.40 from different places where the incident had occurred, which were taken into possession vide memos. P.Y. And P.Z. Respectively in the presence of Jalal Khan P.W.9, Mamraiz Khan S.I. P.W.25 and Lal Khan son of Muhammad (given up P.W.).
11. On 19-7-1981 at 10-00 a.m. Dr. Muhammad Afzal P.W.23 conducted the post-mortem examination on the dead body of Bahadur, deceased, and found a fire-arm wound of entry on the front left side of chest, with its exit on the back of left side of chest, and a fire-arm wound of entry below the right eye. Both the fire-arm wounds were found grievous and fatal and death was opined to be due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of these two wounds, which were found to be sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. Probable time between injuries and death was immediate and that between death and post-mortem examination about eighteen hours.
12. On 19-7-1981, Mst. Manzoor Begum, deceased, died in the hospital. Her post-mortem examination was conducted by Dr. Muhammad Rashid Javaid P.W.20 who found a fire-arm entrance wound on the right lower part of the abdomen, surrounded by a bluish ring round it near the upper pubic area. Death was the result of shock and haemorrhage as result of the said fire- arm injury, which was declared to be sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature.
Probable time between injuries and death was thirty-two to thirty-six hours and that between death and post-mortem examination between ten to twelve hours.
13. On 26-7-1981, Lal Khan, Bahawal Bakhsh, Mushtaq Ahmad, Nadir Khan and Muhammad Anwar, accused, appeared before Mamraiz Khan S.I. P.W.25, who arrested them.
14. On 4-8-1981, Mian Khan, accused, was produced before the Investigating Officer, who arrested him. The same day, Bahawal Bakhsh, Lal Khan, Mushtaq, Mian Khan and Nadir Khan, accused, led to the recoveries of Sotas P.13, P.14, P.15, P.16 and P.17 from their respective houses, which were taken into possession vide memos. P.E., P.F, P.G., P.N. And P.I. Respectively in the presence of Fazal Dad P.W.8, Mamraiz Khan S.I. P.W.25 and Gahna (given up P.W.).
15. On 5-8-1981, Mamraiz Khan S.I. P.W.25 obtained the warrants of arrest for the remaining accused and deputed Muhammad Alam F.C. P.W.4 to serve the same.
16. On 24-8-1981, Mamraiz Khan S.I. P.W.25 arrested Muhammad Malik, accused. At the time of his arrest, gun P.18, five live cartridges P.19 to P.23 and one Rupee 5 Notes P.24 were recovered from his person, which were taken into possession vide memo. P.L. In the presence of Sher Muhammad P.W.10, Mamraiz Khan S.I. P.W.25 and Muhammad Fazal (given up P.W.).
17. Later, Mamraiz Khan S.I. P.W.25 drafted applications for obtaining the warrants of arrest for the absconding accused and also for a proclamation to that effect and sent the same through Muhammad Alam F.C. To the Court of the Ilaqa Magistrate for proceedings under section 87, Cr.P.C.
He also deputed Muhammad lqbal F.C. To arrange the issue of the proclamation.
18. After completing the investigation, the challan against ten of the accused was sent up, as Farman Ali still remained a proclaimed offender.
19. At the trial, the prosecution produced Ghulam Haider complainant P.W.12, Lal Khan P.W.13, Muhammad Aslam P.W.14, Ghulam Haider P.W.15, Mehdi Khan P.W.16 and Jewan P.W.17 both with regard to the motive and the ocular account, Fazal Dad P.W.8, Sher Muhammad P.W.10 and Mamraiz Khan S.I. P.W.25 in support of the recoveries and Lady Doctor Mrs. Fayyaz Pervaiz P.W.18, Dr. Ghazanfar Ahmad Saleem P.W.19, Dr. Muhammad Rashid Javaid P.W.20 and Dr. Muhammad Afzal P.W.23 to corroborate the medical testimony.
20. Except Lal Khan, accused, all the remaining accused denied all the accusations that were levelled against them, including the recoveries effected at their instance. They imputed their false involvement because of their being friendly with Lal Khan, accused, or because of their being resident in the very street where the incident occurred, in which their womenfolk and participated.
Lal Khan, accused, however, made the following statement under section 342, Cr.P.C.:- "My house adjoins on the western side of the house of Jewan P.W. As the water was being stopped by the complainant party on northern side, which used to flow close to their houses and they had stopped so that it may not damage their houses and they wanted to make the flow from the street in which my house was situated. On the day of occurrence, the complainant party, while armed with fire-arm weapons and Kassis, came there and by making a way in the street got the flow of water through the street and started damaging my house and the houses of other inmates of the street. I objected to it, but the complainant party started firing. My son Farman also came over there and we defended through firing upon the complainant party. I cannot say as to at whose hand the complainant party and the deceased were injured, as the firing was from both the sides and there was brickbatting from both the sides. As Mst. Manzoor Begum and Bahadur died, the case was' concocted against me and my relatives and the inmates of the street whose houses were damaged i.e, Bahawal, Mehdi, Anwar, Nadir, Malik, Sharif and Zeman, who are otherwise sympathetic to us."
' The accused, however, did not produce any evidence in their defence.
21. The learned trial Judge disbelieved the recoveries, but relying upon the motive, the ocular account and the medical evidence, convicted and sentenced seven accused and acquitted three, as stated in para. 1 above.
22. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellants, the complainant and the State and have also perused the record. According to the site plan Exh.P.A. And the ocular account furnished by the eye-witnesses, it appears that the house of Jewan 17 and Muhammad Hayat are opposite each other, with an intervening space in between, about eight to ten Karams wide. To the south of the house of Muhammad Hayat are the houses and courtyards of Lal Khan, appellant, and his brother Sher Muhammad. According to Ghulam Haider P.W.12, his house is on the northern western side from the house of Jewan P.W.17 at a distance of forty Karams, and the houses of the other injured prosecution witnesses are adjacent to his house. According to him, there is a street from north to south on the western side of the house of Jewan P.W.17, which is the same street which goes towards the Saim Nala. This witness then has corrected himself by stating that it not a street, but the water channel leading to the main Saim Nala which is 3' 4' in width. According to this witness, all the houses adjoining to that of Lal Khan, appellant, to the south, have their openings towards the eastern side of the water channel, whereas all the houses lying adjacent to that of Jewan P.W.17, to the south, have their openings towards the western side. According to Lal Khan P.W.13, the house of Bahawal, acquitted accused, is to the west of the water channel, opposite the house of Jewan P.W.17, and the house of Nadir Khan, appellant, is to his north and the houses of Ghazanfar and Anwar, appellant, are to his south. According to Ghulam Haider P.W.15, the appellants and the acquitted accused live in separate houses which are on the western side of Jewan P.W.17's house. According to Ghulam Haider P.W.12, the house of Bahawal Bakhsh, acquitted accused, lies in such a position that the overflowing water from the water channel could strike against the outer door of his house and that of Muhammad Anwar, appellant. According to him, as the accused party and difficulty in passing through that passage, they had tried to stop them from making the water channel towards their side. According to Lal Khan P.W.13, the necessity for demolishing the wall of Jewan P.W.17 was to divert the channel which was damaging his house.
According to Mehdi Khan P.W.16, although the water channel which was being opened in front of the houses of the accused persons was at some distance from their outer doors, yet he had to admit that the accused would have been unable to take their cattle or to reach their houses, if the water flowed in that channel. From this evidence and the statement of Lal Khan, appellant, as reproduced in para.20 above, it is clear that the complainant party was attempting to divert the stagnant water standing to the north of the house of Jewan P.W.17 through a channel running north to south and passing in between the house of Jewan P.W.17 and others, on the eastern side of the channel, and that of Muhammad Hayat, Lal Khan, appellant, and the other accused persons, on the western side of the channel. The Investigating Officer, Mamraiz Khan S.I. P.W.25, confirms that the direction of the water channel was from north to south and that on the day of incident the whole of the standing water had passed through that channel. It is clear from the evidence though the water flowing in the channel could have struck against the outer doors of the houses of Bahawal Bakhsh, acquitted accused, and that of Muhammad Anwar, appellant, which was not so possible in respect of the houses of the other accused persons, yet it was clear from Mehdi Khan P.W.16's statement that the accused would not have been able to take their cattle or pass or reach their homes, if the water had passed in the channel. The members of the complainant party were bent upon seeing that the stagnant rain water flowed through that channel from north to south into the main Saim Nala and the members of the accused party were bent upon preventing the same.
23. The main question that now arises is how the occurrence started. According to the consistent testimony of the eye-witnesses, after the complainant party had demolished the northern wall of the house of Jewan P.W.17 and were digging the bed of the water channel, that they heard the Lalkara of the accused persons from the house of Bahawal Bakhsh, acquitted accused, and saw them emerge therefrom, duly armed, as stated in para.2 above, and then launch their attack. The distance between the house of Jewan P.W.17, where the wall was being dismantled, and the place to the west, where the water channel was being opened, where the attack was opened, would be about five to seven Karams. The case of the complainant party is that when they were at the latter place, they saw the appellants and the acquitted accused emerge from the house of Bahawal Bakhsh acquitted accused, and after they came to that spot, Muhammad Malik, appellant, fired at Lal Khan P.W.13 and Mehdi Khan, appellant, fired at Ghulam Haider P.W.15, successfully injuring them, whereafter, in panic and to save themselves, they ran westwards, crossing the wall of Muhammad Hayat's courtyard, which was two feet high, and tried to escape, but were brickbatted and fired upon from behind by the appellants and the acquitted accused. Brickbats have been found both within and outside the courtyard of the house of Muhammad Hayat. However, Mehdi Khan P.W.16 gives the following version in his cross-examination:- "The accused came to the house of Jewan and asked us that they would not allow us to demolish the wall to let the water flow from the courtyard of Jewan P.W. We had not made any response in this respect, but we were attacked by the accused persons. We all were busy in digging out the water channel. We were holding the bricks in our hands whereas Muhammad Aslam had a Kassi with him. We did not throw the brickbats upon the accused to defend ourselves in the courtyard of Jewan. It took us four to five minutes to remain in the courtyard of Jewan during the firing."
' From this statement it appears that the accused persons had come to the house of Jewan P.W.17 to protest against the demolition of the wall and the passage of the water through his courtyard that to this request the complainant party turned a deaf ear and were attacked, that at that time some of the members of the complainant party were holding brickbats in their hands and that at the time of the initial firing, some of the members of the complainant party were also in the courtyard of the house of Jewan P.W.17. The inference, therefore, that can be safely drawn from the evidence on the record is that the dispute between the parties really started at the house of. Jewan P.W.17 and that some brickbats were also exchanged there. Since it is the case of the complainant party that they had partially demolished their northern wall, it is obvious that the complainant party had the benefit of the brickbats which were lying there and which they used when the dispute flared up. The prosecution has tried to suppress from the site plan Exh.P.A. The place where Muhammad Malik and Mehdi Khan, appellant, fired at Lal Khan P.W.13, and Ghulam Haider P.W.15 respectively. The prosecution, it appears, has tried to suppress the exact location where the dispute actually originated. In these circumstances, I have no hesitation in holding that originally the dispute started at the residence of Jewan P.W.17 and that some brickbatting was exchanged between the groups there also.
24. I now turn to the ocular account. The evidence in this case is furnished by Ghulam Haider complainant P.W.12, Lal Khan P.W.13, Muhammad Aslam P.W.14, Ghulam Haider P.W.15, Mehdi Khan P.W.16 and Jewan P.W.17. The first five witnesses are injured. Their presence at the spot, therefore, cannot be disputed. All the witnesses are disinterested witnesses. There is no past enmity between the eye-witnesses, on the one hand, and the appellants, on the other. The evidence of the eye- witnesses, which is detailed in para.2 above is consistent. They have no reason to falsely implicate any of the accused. Their evidence being that of disinterested witnesses, strict corroboration as regards the participation of the appellants is not required, though perhaps a careful scrutiny of their evidence may be necessary to eliminate exaggeration with regard to the manner of their involvement. Bahawal Bakhsh, Mushtaq Ahmad and Muhammad Zaman, acquitted accused, have been given the benefit of doubt, for the purposes of safe administration of justice. This, however, does not effect the ocular testimony. The occurrence is also admitted by Lal Khan, appellant, who also admits the participation of his son Farman Ali, proclaimed offender. The only question, therefore, that arises is as to what offence or offences have been committed by each of the appellants. There is no past enmity between the parties. There was, therefore, no earthly reason for any of the appellants or the acquitted accused to go to the spot initially with fire-arms, with the common object of murdering any of the members of the complainant party. Very likely some of them went armed with Sotas, to pick up a quarrel with the complainant party and, if needs be, to deal with them with Sotas. What appears is that at the house of Jewan P.W.17, both the parties fell out and some brickbatting took place, whereupon on the request for help, other members of the accused party, who were living nearby, turned up with fire-arms and used the same carelessly in defence of their companions. Since the affair was sudden section 149, P.P.C. Does not apply to the instant ease. I draw this conclusion, for if the prosecution story is to be believed i.e, that the accused party initially emerged from Bahawal Bakhsh's house all armed with guns and Sotas to murder the complainant party and Muhammad Malik and Mehdi Khan, appellants, opened the firing, the complainant party would have run eastwards into the house of Jewan P.W.17 and would have had no opportunity to run westwards to the house of Muhammad Hayat, which was in the direction of Lal Khan, appellant's house. The fact that almost all members of the complainant party attempted to and did run westwards in the direction of Muhammad Hayat's house, shows that some time intervened between the actual coming of the accused, who were armed with fire-arms, from their nearby houses to the spot and their actual firing. If this was not so, they would have been killed as "sitting ducks". Such of the members of the accused party who came with Sotas, at best may have had a common intention of causing hurt or grievous hurt. However, they did not straightaway launch any attack. The matter erupted over a quarrel and brickbatting. They are, therefore, liable for their own individual acts. Such of the accused party who came up with fire- arms later, in defence of their companions, also did not run up united in any common intention.
They are also, therefore, liable for their own individual acts.
25. Muhammad Malik, appellant, fired at Lal Khan P.W:13 inflicting on him fire-arm injuries on the lateral and inner aspects of his left upper arm and on his left upper lip. He is, therefore, liable under section 307, P.P.C. Mehdi Khan, appellant, fired at Ghulam Haider P.W.15 inflicting on him fire-arm injuries on the right side of his neck and upper arm and hand. He is also, therefore, liable under section 307, P.P.C. Muhammad Sharif, appellant, fired at Mst. Manzoor Begum, deceased, causing her death. He is, therefore, liable under section 302, P.P.C. Farman Ali, proclaimed offender, fired at Badadur deceased. He was not tried and, therefore, his case is not before me. Lal Khan, appellant, inflicted Sota blow on the head of Muhammad Aslam P.W.14 which was found simple. He is, therefore, liable under section 323, P.P.C. Mian Khan, appellant, threw brickbats which hit Ghulam Haider complainant P.W.12 on his left hand, resulting in two simple injuries. He is, therefore, liable under section 323, P.P.C. Nadir Khan, appellant, threw a brickbat hitting Mst. Manzoor Begum, deceased, on her belly, which injury was simple. He is, therefore, liable under section 323, P.P.C.
Muhammad Anwar, appellant, though alleged to be armed with a pistol, did not use the same, but is alleged to have thrown a brickbat at Mehdi Khan P.W.16, hitting him on his head, which injury was simple. He is, therefore, liable under section 323, P.P.C.
26. The upshot of the above discussion is that Muhammad Sharif, appellant, is found guilty under section 302, P.P.C. And he is sentenced to life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rupees Five Thousand (Rs,5,000) or in default thereof to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for two years. His conviction and sentence under sections 148 and 323, P.P.C. Are set aside. The fine, if recovered, shall be paid to the legal heirs of Mst. Manzoor Begum, deceased. Muhammad Malik, appellant, is found guilty under section 307, P.P.C. And is sentenced to five years' rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rupees Two Thousand (Rs,2,000) or in default thereof to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for six months. The fine, if recovered, shall be paid to Lal Khan P.W.13 as compensation. His conviction and sentence under sections 302/149 and 148, P.P.C. Are hereby set aside. Mehdi Khan is found guilty under section 307, P.P.C. And is sentenced to five years' rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rupees Two Thousand (Rs,2,000) or in default thereof to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for six months. The fine if recovered shall be paid to Ghulam Haider P.W.15 as compensation. His conviction and sentences under sections 302/149, 148 and 323, P.P.C. Are set aside. Lal Khan, appellant, is found guilty under section 323, P.P.C. And his sentence, as awarded to him by the trial Judge, is maintained. The fine, if recovered, shall be paid to Muhammad Aslam P.W.14 as compensation. His conviction and sentence under sections 302/149 and 148, P.P.C. Are set aside. Mian Khan, appellant, is found guilty under section 323, P.P.C. His sentence, as awarded to him by the trial Judge, is maintained. His conviction and sentences under sections 302/149 and 148, P.P.C. Are set aside. The fine, if recovered, shall be paid to Ghulam Haider complainant P.W.12 as compensation. Nadir Khan, appellant, is found guilty under section 323, P.P.C. And his sentence, as awarded to him by the trial Judge, is maintained. His conviction and sentences under sections 302/149 and 148, P.P.C. Are set aside. The fine, if recovered from him shall be paid to the legal heirs of Mst. Manzoor Begum, deceased. Muhammad Anwar, appellant, is found guilty under section 323, P.P.C. And his sentence, as awarded to him by trial Judge, is maintained. His conviction and sentences under sections 302/149 and 148, P.P.C. Are set aside. The fine, if recovered from him, shall be paid to Mehdi Khan P.W.16 as compensation. The benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. Shall be granted to all the appellants by the Jail authorities when calculating their sentences.
27. The appeal of all the appellants, therefore, stands partially allowed in terms of alteration in conviction and reduction in sentences, as stated above.
28. The revision petition has no merit and is dismissed in limine.